Screening Methodology & Research Basis

Each pysiQ screener starts from the same principle: make research-based self-understanding easier to access without pretending to replace a formal evaluation.

That means we adapt published instruments and research frameworks for a clearer online experience, keep the scoring tied to the original constructs where possible, and present the outcome in plain language. The goal is not to force people into a label, but to give them a structured way to recognise patterns, compare domains, and decide whether they want to explore further.

Research basis

The screeners are built from published instruments and research models, including RAADS-R, AQ, and CAT-Q for autism, the 27-item HSP Scale for sensory-processing sensitivity, and ASRS plus DSM-5-aligned criteria for ADHD. We adapt them for online use while keeping the same constructs and, where possible, the same item intent.

How we present results

We present results as profiles, continuum positions, and domain scores rather than as a blunt yes-or-no outcome. Where relevant, multiple screeners can be combined so you can see how patterns overlap in your Blueprint instead of reading each result in isolation.

Results and how to use them

Domain scores show the relative strength of your responses within the pysiQ profile. They are meant for reflection and self-understanding, not as diagnostic labels, clinical probabilities, or fixed cut-offs. Many people use them to clarify their cognitive style, prepare for a conversation with a clinician, or build a fuller picture across screeners.

Key terms

For unfamiliar terms (e.g. masking, sensory sensitivity, executive function), the FAQ explains how we use those ideas when presenting results.

Scoring & privacy

Scoring is informed by published methods. Where pysiQ adapts a response scale, combines instruments, adds a domain, or uses its own interpretation band, we describe that as a pysiQ adaptation rather than treating it as a validated source score. Raw responses are not tied to your account unless you choose to save your profile, and you can delete saved data in settings.

Limitations

Screeners like these have limits. Mood, context, culture, and interpretation all shape how people answer questions. That is why these tools are best used as a starting point for reflection, not as a replacement for a full professional evaluation.

Why offer screeners like this?

Many people want language for their experience before, during, or instead of a formal evaluation. Long waitlists, cost, and uncertainty can make that difficult. A good self-screener can help someone organise what they are noticing and decide what to do next.

Research and updates

We review item pools, wording, and scoring when relevant evidence or revised instruments become available. Published validation statistics belong to the instrument and sample in which they were measured; they are not automatically transferred to an adapted pysiQ screener. Each screener tab shows its domain logic, pysiQ adaptations, limitations, and key references.